Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Mendez, 1st Cir. (2015)
United States v. Mendez, 1st Cir. (2015)
United States v. Mendez, 1st Cir. (2015)
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Selya and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
in
connection
with
conspiracy
to
provide
three years (April 2009 to January 2012) and spanned the country,
with its members operating out of various states (Massachusetts,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, to name a few) and Puerto Rico.
There were distinct jobs to be done, with Puerto Ricobased Mendez operating as a "Savarona Supplier."
The Savarona
December
2011,
Mendez,
along
with
fifty-two
possession
numerous
co-
Mendez was
documents
in
other
people's
card,
and
the
personal
identifying
information
- 3 -
produce,
and
transfer
identification
documents
in
USSG
It
supervisor
in
criminal
activity
involving
five
plus
Assuming a 2-level
Given
took
exception.
The
government
The government,
filed
sentencing
memorandum, which Mendez also did not object to, in which it argued
that Count 2 (conspiracy to encourage aliens to reside in the
United States) provided the higher offense level.
We start with
However,
- 5 -
Id.
2L1.1(b)(2).
government
2L1.1(b)(2)(C).
applied
9-level
enhancement.
Id.
for Count 2 at 22 (one level higher than Count 1), which would
mean Mendez faced a guideline sentencing range of 41 to 51 months
on Counts 1 and 2.
will
say
government
more
thought
on
the
that
particular
Mendez
had
theories
not
only
Basically (and
in
bit)
the
trafficked
100
that
over
they
100
had
worked
documents,
with
and
the
Mendez,
the
documents
conspiracy
were
being
- 6 -
home
presumably
slated
for
more
undocumented
aliens.
the two-year conspiracy, this shows that well over 100 identities
were involved in this case."
The government thought the PSR further supported its
position.
more
documents
had
been
involved,
warranting
the
9-level
that
[Mendez]
indeed
harbored
or
induced
over
100
aliens."
D. Sentencing
At the sentencing hearing, the government emphasized its
contention that the 100-alien enhancement should apply, making
Count 2 yield the higher offense level.
reiterated
2's
the
argument
about
Note
language,
again
government's
the
position.
Nor
did
judge
weigh
in
on
the
had
been
grouped,
the
judge
found
the
pertinent
He
stated that there was a base offense level of 11 and that "since
the offense involved 100 or more documents," a 9-level enhancement
was warranted.
- 8 -
taken the grand total to 21, as it did for probation; however, the
judge completed his guidelines calculation by stating that the end
result was "a total offense level of 22."
judge
investigation
continued,
report
had
stating
adequately
that
the
applied
"presentence
the
guideline
The
sentence was then handed down with Mendez getting a top-of-therange sentence of 51 months on Counts 1 and 2, and the mandatory
agreed upon consecutive sentence of 24 months on the remaining
counts, for a total of 75 months.
Understandably
calculated
Mendez's
confused
offense
by
the
level
fact
that
utilizing
the
the
judge
PSR's
for
by
the
government,
the
prosecutor
asked
for
- 9 -
more
culpable
co-defendants
had
received
lesser
resulted
in
double-counting.4
Mendez's
second
why
Mendez
deserved
top-of-the-range
sentence
and
respect
to
substantive
reasonableness,
Mendez
Among
United States v.
"(1) an error occurred; (2) the error was clear and obvious; (3)
the error affected the defendant's substantial rights; and (4) the
error impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
the judicial proceedings."5
Id. at 56 n.15.
What the third prong of this test means in the sentencing context
is that, but for the error, it is reasonably probable that the
judge would have imposed a more favorable sentence. United States
v. Ahrendt, 560 F.3d 69, 77 n.5 (1st Cir. 2009). And to satisfy
the fourth prong, "a defendant must then show that leaving the
error uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of justice." Id.
- 11 -
some
less-than-explicit
explanations
by
district
Id. at 446-47.
That is the
case here.
The judge did not make any finding with respect to
whether Mendez had indeed induced or harbored 100 aliens. In fact,
the judge said not a word about how he determined this particular
enhancement
was
warranted.
He
simply
stated
that
"Count
controls."
Or
- 12 -
total),
stating
that
"the
offense
involved
100
or
more
(Emphasis
There is also the fact that the record does not make it
mark,
in
the
government's
words,
some
"extrapolating" is required.7
All that being the case, we would be hard pressed to
apply the oft-invoked maxims that the government emphasizes here.
report
with
what
the
judge
did."
United
States
v.
here
would
effectively
render
our
review
meaningless.
"[I]n the end we must be able to figure out what [the court] found
and the basis for the findings to the extent necessary to permit
effective appellate review."
We cannot do that
- 14 -
where
the
basis
for
an
enhancement
is
neither
obvious
nor
- 15 -